Grand Opera House, 710 and 711 Main to be razed.

[FangKC]

The two branches of the Kemper family have been responsible for the demolition of more downtown buildings than one can count--going back to the 1950s.  The irony of this is that Jonathan Kemper serves/served on the National Trust for Historic Preservation. One of life's little twisted jokes.

He was also happy to accept historic tax credits to restore the Commerce Bank & Trust building on Walnut.  What's the point of having him on the National Trust if he doesn't advocate to save old buildings in his own city--other than ones his family built or owns?

The Kempers certainly have the money to buy and restore old buildings, and pay for renovating their own. They own a bank, yet still need taxpayers to renovate 811 Main for them. The Kempers were involved in putting together the plan to renovate the First National Bank for the downtown library, but members of their family do serve on the library board of trustees.

The Grand Opera can be saved.  Buildings in much worse condition have been saved.  Cathedrals in Europe that were bombed or completely burned out after the war have been rebuilt using the remaining structure.

One might be surprised how well-built that building is actually. Shore up the outer facade, reinforce it.  Remove the parking decks, and rebuild the core.

The 1855 Harris-Kearney House (brick) in Westport was moved in 1921 to save it.

Just because something appears difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It's one of the oldest buildings left downtown. Out of hundreds of buildings built before 1900, only around 50 remain downtown.

I would also caution against any hear-say rumors about the physical condition of any historic building. It's a common practice for people and developers to say a building is unstable when they want to demolish it.  Especially when it's a historic building. Larry Bridges used that trick with the Empire Theater. When concerned parties volunteered to have a historic buildings expert inspect the building, Bridges never replied.  A building that Bridges stated was too far gone to save is now being restored for use.

I wouldn't trust any inspector they hired either.   If an unbiased inspector says the Grand Opera House is not salvageable, then fine. One that is not employed by the City, the property owner, or a developer, all of whom could have an vested interest in seeing it demolished.  City leaders rarely say no to anything the Kempers want to do.

I would have a lot more respect for Jonathan Kemper if he actually led a few visible campaigns to save historic buildings that his family didn't build or own, and actually put out some of his own money to save a threatened structure. There are times that I've wondered if the only reason he joined the National Trust for Historic Preservation was to put the kabosh on landmarking certain buildings in Kansas City where he opposed the designation because somehow it didn't benefit the bank or his family. Remember that the Kempers control Tower Properties--one of the largest property owners downtown.  Many of the buildings that were leveled for surface parking might have been eligible for historic designation.

This could certainly be perceived as a case of the fox guarding the hen house.

I would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he has given me little evidence to think otherwise.  I am more than willing to be corrected if someone can provide ample evidence to the contrary.

Example: Photo and article about the plans to preserve the 1864 Legler barn by moving it stone-by-stone from 95th and Quivira Roads to 105th and Pflumm Roads.

http://www.kclibrary.org/localhistory/m ... aID=103238

[moderne]

  Something that makes the future of the remains of the vaudeville house even more tenuous is that the remains of the hotel occuppying half the block are to be demolished and the sad shape of the apartment building to the north.

[KCPowercat]

The talks I've heard about the future of these locations won't make anybody happy on this site.

[DaveKCMO]

surface lots? everybody panic!

[lock+load]

The talks I've heard about the future of these locations won't make anybody happy on this site.

Can't be worse than a surface lot, can it?  Surely no one expected anything more out of Tower.

[lock+load]

According to the Council notes in the paper today, 700 Walnut is the other building to be razed.

[ShowMeKC]

Well if it's surface lots, at least we could develop them into something much better in the future... Maybe we could develop those surface lots into another major redevelopment.

Hopefully they aren't surface lots, but hopefully it isn't very lowrise buildings either.

[kc-vino]

The two branches of the Kemper family have been responsible for the demolition of more downtown buildings than one can count--going back to the 1950s.  The irony of this is that Jonathan Kemper serves/served on the National Trust for Historic Preservation. One of life's little twisted jokes.

He was also happy to accept historic tax credits to restore the Commerce Bank & Trust building on Walnut.  What's the point of having him on the National Trust if he doesn't advocate to save old buildings in his own city--other than ones his family built or owns?

The Kempers certainly have the money to buy and restore old buildings, and pay for renovating their own. They own a bank, yet still need taxpayers to renovate 811 Main for them. The Kempers were involved in putting together the plan to renovate the First National Bank for the downtown library, but members of their family do serve on the library board of trustees.

The Grand Opera can be saved.  Buildings in much worse condition have been saved.  Cathedrals in Europe that were bombed or completely burned out after the war have been rebuilt using the remaining structure.

One might be surprised how well-built that building is actually. Shore up the outer facade, reinforce it.  Remove the parking decks, and rebuild the core.

The 1855 Harris-Kearney House (brick) in Westport was moved in 1921 to save it.

Just because something appears difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It's one of the oldest buildings left downtown. Out of hundreds of buildings built before 1900, less than 40 remain downtown.

I would also caution against any hear-say rumors about the physical condition of any historic building. It's a common practice for people and developers to say a building is unstable when they want to demolish it.  Especially when it's a historic building. Larry Bridges used that trick with the Empire Theater. When concerned parties volunteered to have a historic buildings expert inspect the building, Bridges never replied.  A building that Bridges stated was too far gone to save is now being restored for use.

I wouldn't trust any inspector they hired either.   If an unbiased inspector says the Grand Opera House is not salvageable, then fine. One that is not employed by the City, the property owner, or a developer, all of whom could have an vested interest in seeing it demolished.  City leaders rarely say no to anything the Kempers want to do.

I would have a lot more respect for Jonathan Kemper if he actually led a few visible campaigns to save historic buildings that his family didn't build or own, and actually put out some of his own money to save a threatened structure. There are times that I've wondered if the only reason he joined the National Trust for Historic Preservation was to put the kabosh on landmarking certain buildings in Kansas City where he opposed the designation because somehow it didn't benefit the bank or his family. Remember that the Kempers control Tower Properties--one of the largest property owners downtown.  Many of the buildings that were leveled for surface parking might have been eligible for historic designation.

This could certainly be perceived as a case of the fox guarding the hen house.

I would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he has given me little evidence to think otherwise.  I am more than willing to be corrected if someone can provide ample evidence to the contrary.

Example: Photo and article about the plans to preserve the 1864 Legler barn by moving it stone-by-stone from 95th and Quivira Roads to 105th and Pflumm Roads.

http://www.kclibrary.org/localhistory/m ... aID=103238

Very good post FangKC!!  This is true....and we in KC seem to turn a blind eye to any activity the Kemper family does.  Almost like KC has a inferiority complex about its cities wealth when compared to other cities (Denver, St Louis, Minneapolis, Dallas) that makes us very squirmy and reluctant when somebody complains about the "movers and shakers" of our town.  The Kemper family has been a mixed bag of a blessing and a problem in this cities past 40 years.

[Long]

According to the Council notes in the paper today, 700 Walnut is the other building to be razed.

Is 700 Walnut not the opera house turned parking structure?

[Long]

Most of the powers-that-be only talk about historic preservation when it serves their own purposes.  I think Cordish and the city are another great example.  I think Blake Cordish said in some interview a while back about how great it was that the Hotel President, Empire Theater and the Midland were being renewed and reused, and how important old buildings are in bringing a certain charm and atmosphere that new construction just can't match.  Of course he gave that grand speech standing on the rubble of the TWA building at 13th and Baltimore and several other solid buildings that were torn down to make way for his nondescript low-rise new construction.

Preserving our history is only one reason to justify saving old buildings.  Another is environmental responsibility.  It is always better to reuse than to throw away, no matter how ugly the building.  Consider the TWA building at 18th and Main.  That was one of the ugliest crummiest buildings in the city two years ago, and now with a makeover by some talented architects and a developer with some vision, it is probably one of the most impressive buildings in the city.

Obviously, its a judgment call to decide where you draw the line between history, environmental responsibility and financial feasibility.  You have to have SOME respect for how people choose to spend their money, but at the same time our society should encourage those people with money to spend it more responsibly, to look more than 2 years into the future when evaluating return on investment.

[KCPowercat]

what I heard is tower isn't sure what they want to do yet....but most likely parking....the question was surface or structured I believe.

I could see a structured lot between main and walnut

[DaveKCMO]

i'll go to city hall and fight if they want TIF for structured parking. who's with me?

[staubio]

i'll go to city hall and fight if they want TIF for structured parking. who's with me?

I'm in.  This is getting out of control.

[lock+load]

I don't think Tower will even bother with structured parking.

[staubio]

I think structured parking would be worse in this case, especially in a high profile spot like 7th and Walnut/Main.  At least a surface lot can be built on later without tearing anything out.

[lock+load]

^Agreed.  I think before any assistance is even considered for this property, it needs to belong to someone other than Tower.  They have proven they will take the $$$ to build and then let it languish until $$$ are available again for renovation.  We don't need to continue that cycle,

[FangKC]

I think instead of giving Tower Properties TIF to build themselves another garage, the City should just build a City-owned garage for the neighborhood. Something large enough to serve several buildings, and any future development in the area.   If the garage were large enough (to accommodate cars others than those of UMB, Commerce, Tower and their tenants), it might result in development of the surface parking lots in the north loop.

If Tower builds a garage, it will probably be only for them and their tenants only. I'd rather see a public garage that could also serve as night parking for future residential properties that could be built in that area.  It seems to me that developers have a lot of trouble finding adequate parking for their residential conversion projects (1006 Grand, Professional Building, the demolished Law Building for example), when there are adjacent garages that sit empty from 6 pm to 7 am and on weekends. It puts them in the position of seeking an old building to tear down for a parking garage, or a surface lot.

It appears sometimes that UMB, Commerce, and Tower Properties hoard their parking.   I'm almost to the point of advocating that downtown parking should be a public amenity, and controlled by the City like roads and highways.  It would also take the profit incentive away from people who tear down a building to rent parking spaces.  Controlling parking downtown gives some property owners an unfair advantage over their neighbors, and it's almost like breaking up a monopoly.

City Center Square has always had a big disadvantage because of the lack of parking available to them.  Time Equities has put the building up for sale, and the problematic parking situation might have contributed to their decision.  Anyway, it resulted in the need to demolish Italian Gardens, which was a KC landmark for many years.  That would have been a good location for a little dinner theater, or cabaret, or a new location for Danny Edwards BBQ.  It was a quaint, unique little building that was sort of whimsical in relation to its neighbors.  I miss it.

I still believe that one of the biggest untapped resources to solve parking problems is the airspace over the loop freeways.  Placing parking garages on the perimeter of the downtown loop would resolve the need to tear down any more buildings; would use otherwise lost space; and would free up vacant land parcels for commercial, residential, and retail buildings.  It would also bridge the gapping dead zones that the freeways have created, and relink downtown neighborhoods.  The roofs of the garages could be made into greenspace and parkland to serve adjacent buildings as well, or be the location for solar panels to generate electricity for downtown street lights and such.

[kc-vino]

We don't need to get to heavy and distracted on a parking debate but I'm sorry....The Plaza does public parking 500% better and more efficient than downtown KC ever has and probably ever will.  Downtown has so much working for it but it is still miles behind the Plaza on this issue.  You walk the majority streets downtown (more the case in the loop) and with the exception for the Broadway/Quality Hill area, it is not one bit abnormal to have at least 1/3-1/4 of the parcels of land devoted solely to either surface parking or a parking structure.  In the loop I can think of one successful parking garage in terms of proper mixed use planning, and that one is on 10th and Central (Quality Hill playhouse, an Architecture firm, Sienna Bistro, and others).  You have a couple other aesthetically appealing garages (library garage, ones along Baltimore, some that are directly off of Broadway).  But overall the parking downtown and how the city has dealt with it, is a pathetic metrowide disgrace in terms of proper planning and future vision.   

[Midtownkid]

i wish they would tear down these buildings and the nasty white one to the south and build 2 nice department stores there...macy's and nordstroms....or a macy's and an urban target...anyway, with that nice fountain and island it would be cool to have some fancy shopping there

[kc-vino]

i wish they would tear down these buildings and the nasty white one to the south and build 2 nice department stores there...macy's and nordstroms....or a macy's and an urban target...anyway, with that nice fountain and island it would be cool to have some fancy shopping there

This would be a great location for a mixed use building that housed a department store.  Very visible from the highway and a project large enough in size and influence to clean up that whole North Loop.  It would also be a project that could bridge the Rivermarket neighborhood to the Power and Light district and other destinations in the loop and Crossroads.